Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEILANI MENDOZA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 180972 2014-01-20	JONAS MICHAEL R. GARZA v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PEREZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Unsubstantiated accusations or baseless conclusions of the employer are insufficient legal justifications to dismiss an employee. "The unflinching rule in illegal dismissal cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof."[1]
	GR No. 166096 2008-09-11	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON BRIGIDO L. VELASCO REYES, R.T., J.
C. Velasco has become unfit to continue working at PNB. Taken together, his acts render him unfit to remain in the employ of the bank. That it is his first offense is of no moment because he holds a managerial position. Employers are allowed wide latitude of discretion in terminating managerial employees who, by virtue of their position, require full trust and confidence in the performance of their duties.[74] Managerial employees like Velasco are tasked to perform key and sensitive functions and are bound by more exacting work ethics.[75] Indeed, not even his eighteen (18) years of service could exonerate him. As this Court held in Equitable PCIBank v. Caguioa:[76]
	GR No. 166703 2008-04-14	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ELY GARCIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case at bar, ACC attempted to establish its streamlining program by presenting its new table of organization. ACC also submitted a certification[25] by its Human Resources Supervisor, Ma. Jazmin Reginaldo, that the functions and duties of many rank and file employees, including the positions of Garcia and Balla as Library Aide and Guidance Assistant, respectively, are now being performed by the supervisory employees. These, however, do not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[26] As they are, they are grossly inadequate and mainly self-serving. More compelling evidence would have been a comparison of the old and new staffing patterns, a description of the abolished and newly created positions, and proof of the set business targets and failure to attain the same which necessitated the reorganization or streamlining.
	GR No. 173151 2008-03-28	EDUARDO BUGHAW v. TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law mandates that it is incumbent upon the employer to prove the validity of the termination of employment.[32] Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, illegal.[33] Unsubstantiated claims as to alleged compliance with the mandatory provisions of law cannot be favored by this Court. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of our labor laws and Constitution.[34]
	GR NO. 169600 2007-06-26	MARIVAL TRADING v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court reiterates the settled doctrine that in termination of employment disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause,[27] which Marival herein failed to discharge. Evidence must be clear, convincing and free from any inference that the prerogative to dismiss an employee was abused and unjustly used by the employer to further any vindictive end.[28]
	GR NO. 153193 2006-12-06	PAMPLONA PLANTATION COMPANY v. RAMON ACOSTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING PETITIONER'S MANAGER PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CORPORATE ACTS IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW.[2] At the outset, it should be stated that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, the reason being that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not for this Court to reexamine and reevaluate the evidence on record.[3] Considering, however, that the CA and the Labor Arbiter came up with an opinion different from that of the NLRC, the Court is now constrained to review the evidence on record.[4]
	GR NOS. 148500-01 2006-11-29	TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal.[13] Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of our labor laws and Constitution.[14]
	GR NO. 147790 2006-06-27	GENUINO ICE COMPANY v. ALFONSO S. MAGPANTAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Whether or not the Court a quo erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payment of separation pay and full backwages to the respondent?[15] At the outset, it should be stated that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, the reason being that this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not for this Court to reexamine and reevaluate the evidence on record.[16] However, considering that the CA came up with an opinion different from that of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the Court is now constrained to review the evidence on record.[17]
	GR Nos. 164684-85 2005-11-11	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Although admissible in evidence, affidavits being self-serving must be received with caution. This is because the adverse party is not afforded any opportunity to test their veracity.[41] By themselves, generalized and pro forma affidavits cannot constitute relevant evidence which a reasonable mind may accept as adequate.[42] There must be some other relevant evidence to corroborate such affidavits.